The Cost of Progressive Ideals

As has previously been mentioned, I am currently writing a research paper on Progressivism. Although I am taking a general approach to flushing out some of my ideas through this blog, I won’t post my paper until after it is graded. I would hate for the graders to do a Google search and find my own paper, on my own blog, and think I plagiarized it. That being said, I think I will just throw out some similar ideas to the ones I am incorporating into the paper and flush them out a bit here.

One of the tenants of Progressivism is to use the general rally cry of war to further social causes and attempt to treat social ills. In their early days they discovered that nothing rallied a nation together as the cry of war. It allows the government to access the great resources of the nation to push towards a common goal. At that point in history, people didn’t look to the national government to help cure social ills. They rightly felt it was the responsibility of their local community to address any social problems that may arise (poverty, crime, etc.).

With the above strategy in mind, Progressives set out to cure the modern social ills of the day. Their first major success in getting the nation to agree on the solution of a problem was met with prohibition. Progressive politicians with the help of pressure put on the U.S. Senate from the Temperance Movement passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and it took effect a year later. We can see that “The Noble Experiment” although well intentioned was a failure in the end. It was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. If you doubt Prohibition failed to have the effect they intended, remember the decade in which it was active has been dubbed “The Roaring 20’s.” It was a time when bootleg licker and speakeasy’s were the norm for many cities.

The Temperance Movement was the first social “war” against anything. As you move through the history of the 20th century you can see other wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are just a few. To get a look at the modern cost of one of these “wars”, let’s take a look at the War on Poverty.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964. For our analysis we will look at means-tested welfare; aid that provides assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The examples would be food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Although this all works towards a noble cause, it puts much more of a strain on the nation than if these issues were handled in our local communities.

The data discussed is from a Heritage Foundation report published this morning by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, and Helen DeVos. On average, welfare spending comes out to about $7,000 per year for each poor person or $28,000 for a low income family of four. When President Johnson started the war on poverty, means-tested welfare spending was 1.2% of GDP. In FY 2008 it reached 5% of GDP. This is obviously a significant increase. If total means-tested welfare spending were given to those below the poverty line in cash, the amount spent would equal 4 times the amount needed to bring these families above the poverty line.

Why do they not just give the families cash and save the taxpayer some money? It comes down to control. Remember that progressives believe that the people are either too stupid to know what is best for them or too selfish to do what would be in the best interest of their community, or in their view, the nation. If they just gave the cash to the poor, at some point they might not be as dependant on the state to fulfill the needs that some of those programs fill. For instance, if someone had the money to choose where they wanted to live, why would they want to live in a government housing project? Another component is public opinion. If the average taxpayer discovered the government was giving these people cash, they would demand accountability and an end to those people being on the government dole. They would demand these people pick themselves up and improve their own situation. If that were the case, the progressive elements in the government would lose their influence over a substantial portion of their voting bloc.

“Since 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).” I really can’t see the “progress” touted in this “war” nor can I see any potential sign of victory in the near future if this particular “war” is continued in the manner as it is now. That is because progressives believe that everything should be “fair.” You have to redistribute the wealth of others to those that don’t have as much.

Speaking of “spreading the wealth,” “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.”

There is a quote penned by Adrian Rogers in 1931 that has gained a lot of traction recently by those concerned with spending on this particular war.

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. No government can give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

For a great breakdown of what it means to be poor in America, read this additional article by Mr. Rector that reveals these stunning facts:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

As noted, one of the major “wars” launched by progressives failed and things were sent back to how they were, and another is failing miserably. Be careful for their next war which appears to be the War on Obesity. I don’t believe they will all out ban certain things, but I do believe they will attempt to regulate these items in a way to make them more costly; therefore “nudging” us away from them. Progressives may be good at the touchy feely, but their basic ideas and beliefs work to strip away the freedoms we have for the benefit of the all knowing state.

Chain Letter

Although this came in via email, I think it sums up the feelings of a large number of Americans.

Dear Mr. President:

I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, thatI'm on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $ 4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

You're the man!!!

Progressive Research Paper

I am currently starting a research paper for my English class. I have decided to carry on the theme I started with my last post and address Progressivism. As it goes along with the intent of my blog I figured I would share my research and paper with you. I also figured it would be good to get as much feedback as possible.

Here is my general thesis as it stands.

Progressive Ideals Are At Odds With The Intent of The Founding Fathers

I have drafted out the following as some potential talking points or areas to cover.

What are the tenants of progressivism?
What is the history of progressivism?
What was the intent of the founding fathers regarding the scope of national/central government?
What were poverty levels before progressivism flourished?
What was community involvement like before progressivism flourished?
What are poverty levels like now?
What is community involvement like now?
How have both major political parties used progressive ideals to push their agendas?
How do the ideals of progressivism affect individual rights?
What was the intent of the founding fathers in regards to individual rights? Are they more important than the rights of the state?
How did natural law formulate the beliefs of the founders in regards to individual rights?
How does this contrast with the progressive belief that there is no natural law?

Some of the above ideas have been drafted out as I read some of my research. As this is a fluid project I am working on across the next month it will obviously change. Any of your ideas on the above mentioned topics and anything else I post would be greatly appreciated.

Progressives and Free Choice

I have been looking into and doing a lot of thinking on the origin of some people's ideas that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are outdated. It comes down to the Progressive Movement which started in the late 19th century. I think the following quote captures the thoughts of Progressives quite well.

Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:

"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....

But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."

Does the reaction to dissent and other ideas opposed to their own by the progressives back then seem familiar today?

I found this great bit of information in a piece posted by the Heritage foundation.

This is what it comes down to; progressives believe that people do not have the ability to choose what is best for them in leading their lives, therefore the state and the elite political culture should choose for them. After all, the state knows what is best for everyone and therefore can make a paradise for everyone all at once. What a load of crap! Free choice is our greatest God given gift. Although Progressives preach the touchy feely we are trying to help everyone and do it for their own good, they are intent on taking away that God given right. You can see the progressive thread in every major issue being debated on the political scene today; health care, cap and trade, junk food taxes, and economic stimulus.

DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU!!

Remember that our rights come directly from God to us, we then loan a couple of those rights to the government to assist in providing for the common defense and providing an environment that allows us to determine our own destiny.

Central planning and collectivism for the common good has NEVER worked in history. The current crop of progressives claim they can make it work cause they are much "cleverer" than those before them. You will find them in both of the major political parties.

Read The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and I would even say Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". Although he wrote it for a French audience in the mid-19th century, it shows we are on the same path the French were back then. Frankly, that scares the crepes out of me.

Educate yourself and be active in your community so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Czar and Other Updates

An updated "czar" list has been published. I wanted to link it here and state that this is the list I will be working from in my examination of the different czars. It has been thoroughly researched and vetted.

I also thought I would drop in a couple other bits today. There is an article regarding a Town Hall meeting held on "Climate Change." It brought people together to actually debate the science and show support for those that are looking at the science and saying Al Gore and his PowerPoint brigade are wrong. It's nice to see the "settled debate" actually starting and happening. It points out some interesting facts about previous impending "ecodisasters" and predicts what people may claim will be the next few.

As the health care debate rages on, it's interesting to see how different groups land on this issue. The CEO of WholeFoods recently came out against government healthcare. The hopey changies are all in a tizzy over this one. Some are calling for a boycott of Whole Foods. When 80% of Americans like the healthcare they have, I don't think calling for a boycott of Whole Foods is going to sway many people. Another notable person speaking out against government healthcare is Nancy Reagan. Of course, that does not come as a surprise to me.

The other thing I just had to mention is Michael Vick. What kind of example does that set for kids when you say, "oh yeah sure, you broke the law in a major way, but come back and we'll pay you several million dollars a year just the same." Something that once again points to societies lack of forcing people to own up to their own personal responsibility.

For those of you that feel that any of this is "fishy" truth, you can report it here.

Last but not least, for those of you feeling down with the whole creeping in of Socialist Fascisism, here is something that will just make you laugh. I know it makes me laugh every time.

Here a Czar, There a Czar, Everywhere a Czar Czar

I’ve been thinking lately if there is one thing that I can concentrate on. To continually inform everyone about and get the information out there. Recently Glenn Beck stated that with so much going on and so much being thrown at us that everyone needs to be a watchdog for the constitution. I think this is dead on. It was suggested to find something you are interested in or want to know more about and just study and watch that one thing. Get the information out on what is happening with that particular subject. I have decided to research and look into all the “czars” that the President has been appointing.

There are several things I have learned in attempting to start a business and make my own stake. One of the things I learned early on is that I don’t have to know everything. I can create what many people refer to as a “Master Mind Alliance.” You can surround yourself with people knowledgeable in areas you know little or nothing about. You should leverage their knowledge and time to help fill in the gaps and get to your goals much faster. This is what his “High and Mightiness” has done. I think the Old McDonald’s farm analogy is perfect. There are currently more “czars” in the administration then the Russian dynasty ever had. Recent counts put it at just about 40 “czars” and growing. Here is a sampling.

1. Herbert Allison Jr., bailout czar, [replaced Bush bailout czar Neel Kashkari, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability confirmed by Senate]

2. Alan Bersin, border czar

3. Dennis Blair, intelligence czar [Director of National Intelligence, a Senate confirmed position]

4. John Brennan, counterterrorism czar

5. Carol Browner, energy czar

6. Adolfo Carrion, urban affairs czar

7. Ashton Carter, weapons czar [actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and so subject to Senate confirmation]

8. Aneesh Chopra, technology czar

9. Jeffrey Crowley, [openly gay white man] AIDS czar

10. Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar

11. Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar

12. Earl Devaney, stimulus oversight czar

13. Joshua DuBois, religion czar, aka God czar

14. Arne Duncan, education czar

15. Kenneth Feinberg, pay czar

16. Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar

17. J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar

18. Melissa Hathaway, [soon to be] cybersecurity czar

19. David J. Hayes, water czar [a Deputy Interior Secretary and therefore subject to Senate oversight]

20. Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) czar

21. John Holdren, science czar

22. Kevin Jennings, safe schools czar [nominated to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, a newly created post; openly gay founder of an organization dedicated to promoting pro-homosexual clubs and curricula in public schools]

23. Van Jones, green jobs czar

24. Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar

25. Ron Kirk, trade czar

26. Vivek Kundra, infotech czar [Shoplifted four shirts, worth $33.50 each, from J.C. Penney in 1996 (source)]

27. Douglas Lute, war czar [retained from Bush administration, married to Jane Holl Lute, currently a Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security]

28. George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar

29. Ed Montgomery, car czar [replacing Steve Rattner, who stepped down amid controversy over his former firm’s role in a possible kickback scandal]

30. Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar

31. Dennis Ross, Mideast policy czar

32. Gary Samore, weapons of mass destruction czar

33. Todd Stern, climate change czar

34. Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar

35. Larry Summers, economic czar

36. Michael Taylor, food czar

37. Arturo Valenzuela, Latin-American czar (nominee) [although this post is referred to as a czar, he is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and so is subject to Senate confirmation]

38. Paul Volcker, economic czar number two

39. Elizabeth Warren, TARP czar [chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Trouble Assets Relief Program; note that Herb Allison is more frequently called the TARP czar]

40. Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar [replaced original nominee Nancy Killefer who withdrew her name after issues with her personal income tax filings surfaced]

Positions established but not yet filled:

41. behavioral science czar

42. copyright czar

Positions rumored as being planned:

1. income redistribution czar
2. land-use czar
3. consumer financial protection czar, aka mortgage czar (source)
4. radio-internet fairness czar
5. student loan czar, to oversee a program of mandatory service in return for college money (source)
6. voter list czar
7. zoning czar

I know that recently the person rumored to become his Cybersecurity Czar resigned and went back to the private sector. It makes you wonder if she learned some things about government “efficiency” that didn’t sit well with what she was tasked to do.

Although there are a few of these people that are in positions confirmed by the Senate, most of them are not. There is even a long standing Democrat Senator that is against and worried about the President appointing all these czars. It circumvents the process laid out in the Constitution for oversight by the Congress. Circumventing the Constitution and grossly expanding the scope and reach of the Executive Branch does not seem to bother the “Chosen One.” He says he has a “mandate” from the people to “fundamentally change” America. I like the old fashioned fundamentals just the way they are.

I believe it is important and crucial for us to know who is advising the President, what their beliefs are, and what their backgrounds are. Lots of people try to say, “oh, that was in the past, or I have changed my view on that.” I firmly believe that our past actions and beliefs have a profound effect on who we are and the current opinions we hold. Every week I will research a “czar” and back it up with sources. I will share that information with you so we can all stay informed. If there is another subject or topic that is just dying for me to comment on, I’ll just have to have two posts that week.

Remember to write and call your representatives on issues you are concerned about. Go to town hall meetings when they are home on break and discuss the issues. Don’t be afraid of the SEIU and ACORN goons that are trying to keep you out. Show up and exercise your first amendment right to free speech, even if your representative doesn’t want to listen to it.

A Representative Government?

 

You know, I must have been mistaken growing up. I kept hearing about how we live in a country with great representative government. You elect people to office and they do the bidding of their constituents. That even if there are those they represent who do not agree with them, they have an open dialogue and take the opposing viewpoints into account. After what I have heard from the White House and congressional representatives facing heat from their constituents, I just don’t believe that anymore.

At many town hall meetings across the country people who are normally quiet, you know, the people who spend their time making an honest living, have shown up to voice their opinion on health care. Most of the people showing up are against any type of government takeover of the healthcare industry. These individuals are well spoken and have very good, logical points they are making when voicing their opinion. What is the response from the White House and the very representatives that supposedly represent them? They accuse the people of being a “fringe” element and of using “talking points”. Let me figure this one out; because somebody has taken the time to research an issue, formulate an opinion, and put their conclusions and opinions with logic it is a bad thing?

Here are some examples:

People at a town hall in Austin, TX voiced their opinions and disagreement with Representative Lloyd. This is how he described these constituents.

“A fringe group committed to doing anything they can to disrupt and stop this healthcare reform legislation.”

If it is just a fringe group, how come there were recently 10,000 people that came out in Columbus, Ohio to protest healthcare.

Senator Arlen Specter and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were at a town hall in Philadelphia. This is what one constituent said.

“I see this healthcare plan I see nothing that's about health or care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke. Medicare is broke. Social security is broke, and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a Cash for Clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our US economy?”

Senator Specter and Secretary Sebelius accused the people of using “talking points”, that they can’t read on their own, and that all of their opinions were being fed to them by the insurance companies. The last time I checked, the big insurance companies were actually in the Oval Office supporting this legislation. Big business is in bed with the government on this because it will eliminate their competition for them. What they don’t see is that they are committing suicide.

This was Specter’s response to constituents asking why their representatives weren’t taking the time to read the legislation.

“My practice -- when you have a bill and you have a more than a thousand pages of healthcare and we divide up the bill, we have to make judgments very fast”

The crowd was not too receptive of that. They actually booed him. Call me crazy but if you are honestly representing the people who put you into office, shouldn’t you show the common courtesy of reading ALL legislation completely?

Recently on YouTube there was a video placed that showed President Obama making the following statement in 2003.

“Single-payer healthcare coverage. Universal healthcare coverage. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you may know, we may not get there immediately because first we've got to take back the White House. We've got to take back the Senate.”

The White House went ballistic and had Linda Douglas, Communications Director for the White House Office of Health Reform ( I didn’t even know such an office existed, our tax dollars at work I guess) put out a video stating the following:

“Hi, I'm Linda Douglas. I'm the communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. And one of my jobs is to keep track of all the disinformation that's out there about health insurance reform. There are a lot of very deceiving headlines out there such as this one. Take a look at this one. This one says uncovered video. Obama explains how his healthcare plan will eliminate private insurance. Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. You know, the people who always try to scare people whenever you try to bring them health insurance reform are at it again. And they're taking sentences and phrases out of context and cobbling them together to leave a very false impression. The truth is that the president has been talking to the American people a lot about health insurance reform and what is at stake for them. So what happens is that that because he's talking to the American people so much there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time and they take a phrase here and there. They simply cherry pick and put it together. And make it sound like he's saying something that he didn't really say.”

If you watch the video, nothing was cherry picked and they didn’t use editing software to create some manufactured occurrence. The video is uncut. Glenn Beck was right, it’s like 1984. Two plus two doesn’t equal four, it equals whatever we say it is. Do they just think we are stupid? White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, had this gem to say yesterday, “I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the Astro-turf nature of grassroots lobbying." He basically called every constituent that came out to voice disagreement as a fake grassroots movement. That we are on some mythical person’s payroll and we are taking marching orders. What a load of crap!

This is what DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said, "The Republicans and their allied groups desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill ... are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country,"

I email my representative and Senators on a daily basis. I call them once a week to leave a message. This is all to voice my disagreement on several issues, but healthcare being a biggie. In Overton they have started having weekly tea parties on Saturday afternoons. Starting next weekend, this weekend I am getting away with my Sweetie!, I will be out there as well. I am doing everything I can to make my voice heard and encouraging others to do the same. Your country is being hijacked and although people are starting to wake up, I’m afraid the pace needs to pick up a bit. This battle is a long haul and if the reactions of our elected officials to our discontent are any indicator, it is going to be a drawn out knock down fight to the finish. Hopefully our Republic will remain intact and the TRAITORS will be replaced by honest hard working folks like us.